This would mean members of the public would be allowed to destroy any nests or eggs they came across – more or less at will.

Natural England’s consultation paper on the subject doesn’t shed much light on the reasons for these quite shocking proposals either – other than stating that these birds can present a “public health and safety” hazard.

There is no explanation of what exactly the public health and safety hazards of robins’ and starlings’ eggs are.

However, after a little investigation into the murky waters of party donations all has now become clear.

Last year government ministers chose Andrew Sells – a Chartered accountant with no experience of ecological or environmental matters – as the new Chair of Natural England.

All wild birds, their nests and young are protected throughout England and Wales by the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). It is illegal to kill, injure or take any wild bird, or damage or destroy the nest or eggs of breeding birds.

If nests, whether completed or in the process of being built, are found on site, any works with the potential to damage or destroy the nest, eggs or young birds, must stop until the birds have completed breeding.

Birds may nest on machinery or scaffolding and other temporary site structures. If this happens the equipment cannot be used until the birds have finished nesting and such areas may need to be sealed off to prevent disturbance.

Breaking the law can lead to fines of up to £5000 per offence and potential prison sentences of up to six months. Vehicles implicated in an offence can be compounded and both the company, and/or the individual(s) concerned, can be held liable.

Obviously, removing the protection of eggs and nests of nesting birds would save developers a lot of time and money.

Related

Post navigation

148 thoughts on “Here’s the real reason the Tories are allowing the destruction of robin eggs and nests”

Now this is interesting: how times have changed, at the time of the construction of the experimental and defective LNG infrastructure from South Wales to the West of England: people were expendable.
A bird, a newt, toad or bird had greater rights than a human being.

How times have changed: sadly every living specimen will be treated equally when the foreseeable will happen.

yet our birds are under a bigger threat of living has each species goes through that death threat of modern world they our friends die easy now they want to kick them further into that annialation zone all for that greedie people who have their pockets full yet they will rob of the birds now has killing their poor seems to easy for them all it seems the worlds gone mad jeff3

The main threat here is greed and that is who you are soon to vote for.
You should consider that.
Politicians come cheap but as far as they are concerned so does life at all ends of the spectrum.
Perhaps if the law allowed destruction of pests and included politicians as a target species then I’d be alright with this change.

The main threat here is greed and that is who you are soon to vote for.
You should consider that.
Politicians come cheap but as far as they are concerned so does life at all ends of the spectrum.
Perhaps if the law allowed destruction of pests and included politicians as a target species then I’d be alright with this change.

“Natural England” – what a misnomer. They are a wholly-owned subsidiary of DEFRA: NE’s funding last year was £60m. Cheque written by DEFRA: £60m. DEFRA, as we should all know, is controlled by the Cabinet, all of whom are in turn controlled as a puppet is controlled by he who jerks the strings to make the puppet dance, by the money men. This wanton destruction of the environment and wildlife that we’ve seen for the past four years is in the interests and at the behest of the property developers, the bird shoot syndicates and Big Agri.

Let me get this right, Minister Grant Schapps, minister for local government and rural affairs. Accepts donations to the Tory party from big developers to concrete over Britain. He orders the destruction of all wildlife to get the money. Is this the same Grant Schapps who claimed £400 on expenses for Hebrew lessons. Before he married his Jewish boyfriend. Correct me if I’m wrong.

How many Grant Schnapps do you know?? ~ The Tory MP for Welwyn Hatfield, Housing & Local Government Minister & Conservative Party Chairman, is not Jewish but English. he was born in Watford, Herts. He married a nice Jewish girl, Belinda Goldstone, in 1997 and they have 3 children. Maybe you have been a bit too long at the schnapps and got your facts in a twist 🙂

Reblogged this on Wine And Roses From Outer Space and commented:
I read about this online this morning. A disgusting suggestion – as if we have the right to dictate to the other planet-dwellers (which we don’t. Please spread the word.

This has me crying with anger and frustration, so any thug, animal hater and common idiot will have the power to destroy any bird nest they find?! Thus leading to more endangered species. This Conservative party is so corrupt and needs to be ousted. Soon England will be an ugly concrete mass with no nature what so ever.

Actually it’s not bloody defra who fund this false organisation…defra is funded by US so…….that’s the trouble though these people are so sneaky and insidious with their bribery that they think we won’t notice and in a lot of cases we probably don’t . Remember this though that when someone says government funded …all governments are funded by US the people and we all need to wake up to that fact and use our power.We do have it we just don’t all know it…YET..

Unbelievable isn’t it. We spent years getting Councils and builders to lay off from tree cutting and tidying in the nest season and then this. These people are ripping apart the civilised society that’s taken centurys to build. I think we’ve reached the bridge too far though; this one issue could lose them the next election. We just have to ensure that greedy speculators don’t corrupt the new ‘old’ Labour party.

This is beyond horrific and also not surprising. How can there be so much evil and greed in one set of people? Disgusting. My grandparents will be spinning in their graves. I was always taught by them to love and respect our endangered and much needed wildlife.

Sod all to do with wee birdies…….just unhampered greed and could relate to anything that the Tories want rid off…OAP’s, teachers, nurses, anyone that has less than £1,000,000 in the bank, the unemployed, etc, etc

Reblogged this on Beastrabban’s Weblog and commented:
More institutional corruption from Cameron’s Tories, who are rapidly outdoing even New Labour for crony capitalism. Mr Pride here presents the case that Natural England is in favour of killing off the natural wildlife, because its new chair, Andrew Sells, is a venture capitalist and property developer, to whom nesting birds are a major obstacle. There has been a serious drop in starling numbers, I believe. So much so that scientists and conservationists are seriously worried. But despite this, the Tories seem to want to finish them off altogether.

A program recently about killing migrating birds in Malta, was derided by some. A friend was out there recently and asked the locals WHY are there no INDIGENOUS birds? REPLY: We have killed them ALL. Wonder HOW LONG before the UK becomes the same?

I’m having difficulty seeing the story here. Even if Andrew Sells had personally put together these proposals (which is doubtful), they don’t benefit him directly – he sold his stake in Linden Homes back in 2007.

The story’s not about Sells benefiting personally. He’s already made lots of money. It’s about political parties – in this case the Tory Party – willing to destroy wildlife just to keep some of their donors happy.
Sells knows what needs to be done to keep developers happy because he was in the same business.
And if you think political parties (of all colours) don’t change their policies to keep their donors happy – then you’re naive to the point of recklessness.

In my experience, wildlife organisations etc don’t like to get too political for fear of making enemies of a party once it gets into power. So they try to stay out of anything that might smack of party politics.
I obviously have no such qualms or considerations.
Chris Packham has already tweeted a link to it btw.

It’s my understanding that they are ONLY going to allow the destruction of nests where they pose a danger to public health. I.e. blocking your central heating flue so your house fills with carbon monoxide and kills you and your family. I don’t see how birds nesting on a greenfield or brownfield site and preventing the developer’s bulldozers from moving in would be posing a threat to public health, so it would still be illegal to destroy them.

Frankly, if a robin, starling or any other bird started building a nest in my central heating flue I would remove it whatever the law says. So all this proposal means is that I will no longer be criminalised for being sensible.

You’ve misunderstood Dave. It’s already possible to get permission to destroy nests in the circumstances you described. The new proposals mean that general licences would be issued, which would mean that anyone – for example a developer – could destroy any nests they wanted at will without any further permission. They wouldn’t have to even prove a nest was a danger to public health before they destroyed it
Why would a householder want a general licence? How many central heating flues do you have?

Not just fear of a party once in power, but complaints can be lodged with the charity commission if people believe criticism is politically motivated.
(The RSPCA certainly has run afoul of that in the past).

I’m sure the RSPB and The Wildlife Trusts would outright condemn damaging nests/killing nesting birds though – without necessarily needing to get to the specifics about Natural England or obvious corruption…

Sadly, I feel that as we all know they have been killing sick, disabled and poor people, there is no shock value left when we hear they have turned on nature, especially the rearing of young birds.

It’s very sad, that to benefit a few of their 1% pals, they will turn the clock back repealing hard-fought for and popular laws made to enrich our environment and provide us with a moral and legal framework that compels us to respect wildlife. As I have said before, it’s not just the corruption, but it the rush with almost sadistic glee to maim that is stomach-churning, and it leaves pure tyranny well behind. It’s disgusting.

(The poor bloody badgers were the first, and then they came for the birds, then they will come for rest of the wildlife……what next? A law making us all spray roundup on our gardens? )

And after this no doubt bats will lose their protection too so that builders and developers can do what they want and make more money and despoil and degrade this planet a little more. Natural England is a sham and this government is doing nothing to keep life alive on this earth and we’re all going to suffer the consequences …

mike
the rich are only concerned with protecting, and enhancing their own nest eggs…
a bridge too far indeed, do the wealthy really believe that they can buy protection, from the havoc caused by creating their wealth? …. re people made global warming, deniers take note of this survey report…antarctic ice loss doubles…http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27465050

Hi I’ve drafted a response to the proposals but I am not an expert in these matters so I’ve just done my best by looking at the consultation documents and general licence information.

Consultation Question(s):

Question 2(a): Are you aware of any reasons why the change outlined in Proposal 2(a) should not be made?

I oppose the proposal 2 (a). The consultation document has not provided any summary or rationale to a statistically relevant degree to suggest that Greylag goose and Mallard constitute the health and safety hazard to justify a General Licence. The summary and rationale is too vague and lacks specificity to justify the granting of a General Licence.

Question 2 (b): What is your view on pied wagtail, robin and/or starling being added to paragraph 2(ii) of General Licence.

I oppose proposals 2 (b). The number of robins, pied wagtails and starlings nesting in ventilation flues needs to be established prior to providing a general licence to destroy eggs and nests of these species.

This has not been established and could lead to widespread destruction of valuable species.

The consultation paper specifies that
‘The very small number of nests potentially affected by licensing currently does not, and will not under a general licence arrangement, have a discernable impact on the populations of any of these species’

The citation of 1, 5 and 4 licences granted respectively in 2012 for these species does not indicate the necessary statistical evidence to suggest that there is a widespread problem of such nesting birds that should be redressed by a General Licence. The claim that more timely processes could be gained by a General Licence is contradicted by the small number of licences provided at present. 10 licences per annum does not constitute a significant administrative burden that justifies the removal of protection for these valuable species in general. The potential for abuse of a General Licence offsets any benefit for the approximately 10 annual applicants of specific licences that could be gained by more timely processes. The summary and rationale therefore actively contradicts the proposal, which should be rejected.

The inability of the consultation paper to establish the number of said nesting birds providing a hazard to health and safety other than the sole example of ventilation flues suggests this is a spurious reason and there are other more dubious reasons for this change. There must be a wealth of empirical evidence to support this alleged danger – within ventilation flues and other alleged heath and safety concerns prior to a General Licence to remove the young, eggs and potentially mature birds of these and other species.
It must be made clear which types of ventilation flues are vulnerable to nesting birds, and other examples drawn from empirical evidence and EHO reports must be cited alongside significant statistical evidence that such a danger exists prior to the creation of a General Licence. The summary and rationale does not provide such evidence.

Development sites without residents in immediate and present danger from nesting birds have to be specifically exempt from any decision to grant a General Licence to remove and destroy nests, eggs and young. This should not be a carte blanche for development sites to destroy such nests, eggs, young and potentially mature birds of these and other valuable species where no residents are in immediate and present danger. The General Licence (http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/wml-gl05_tcm6-24150.pdf) allows for the killing of mature birds and does not exempt non-residents from the destruction of nests and eggs, it is therefore not applicable to these species.

The link between the Chair of Natural England and political influence over the Conservative Party especially his role as a major donor to the Conservative Party brings up potential allegations of corruption and nepotism. The lobbying potential of a major political donor and his interest as a developer have identifiable conflicts of interest to substantiate an impartial approach to the preservation of the natural habitat and wildlife. He should be removed from post.

To complete the consultation response you need to go to page 6 of the consultation Word document and complete two questions. My responses were:

Question 2(b): What is your view on pied wagtail, robin and/or starling being added to paragraph 2(ii) of General Licence WML-GL05 permitting taking, damaging and destroying of nests, and taking and destroying of eggs, for the purpose of preserving public health and safety?

Response:

It is unreasonable to add pied Wagtail, robin and starlings to the general license. A total of 10 licenses issued to resolve genuine health and safety issues is insufficient evidence to add these species to a general license. This is particularly important for starlings whose numbers are in decline and the species is under threat.

It seems entirely possible that this addition is not for health and safety, but is for the convenience of developers, such as Linden Homes whose plans can be held up due to nesting birds.

Assessment of Regulatory Impact:

A saving of £1370 for 10 individual licences per year is an unacceptable cost saving against the unregulated destruction of robin, starling and wagtail nests for the convenience of developers.

To be honest I doubt that he is driving this. I think it more likely to be one of those ideas that some lobbyist put forward, possibly on behalf of developers, that has gathered dust in some forgotten corner of a Defra filing cabinet for a few years.

Needing to justify their continuing existence, one of the few surviving Defra civil servants has found this little gem, brushed off the dust, changes the dates and put this forward to the minister, in order to give them something to do for a few months, in the absence of any sensible policy or legislation coming forward between now and the general election.

The World had gone mad already a long time ago, it shows in the (man made) deserts, all over the planet, the madness is showing itself more, as we now have the toys and tools to turn even England into a desert, chopping down the remaining Rain forests (in the World), for reasons of building armada’s, and feeding our children GM crops.
Don’t worry, be happy, and just consume the last bits of our planet, for us, the last planet we can ever kill, or, wake up, grow your own, and turn your own neighborhood into a balanced paradise, and stop saying “Sir” to criminals, that loot this planet, as if we could fly to the next one, to continue the worship of the God of Greed, the door is closed, we’re in it together, it is totally up to “Us”, if we want to live, or die with the planet. (it starts with being critical, as we do, it can be done by doing the “Work”.)

I have just read this article and am saddened by it god forbid it will ever happen but am amazed that the British government could even consider such a horrible thing. I am irish so I hope the British people will fight to protect the wildlife.

It is good to see people get hyped up about bird conservation the motives purported to here are entirely ludicrous. For starters licenses are already available for the removal of these species. In fact in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland the general license already applies to starlings. Furthermore the license will still require a valid reason to be used and breaching this will still be a criminal offense. So removing starlings from a building site will still be illegal if the nests are active. With or without the change monitoring and enforcement of the WCA 1981 is not going to change. I don't expect the general public to suddenly arm themselves to rid us of this wild bird blight which we are obviously facing, so no problems there. The simple fact is that habitat destruction and even our 4 legged friends are having a much greater impact on this than any license which we may grant. E.g 55 million birds are estimated caught by cats per year. In the entirity of 2011, 1 Robin and 10 Starlings were killed under license.

On the positive side in the last few years successful convictions under the WCA 1981 have doubled.

I’m not formally a bird-watcher, though I like all wildlife. This extraordinary story is disgusting. People will probably only wake up to it when the developers come after them instead of sparrows. They’d better know it will not be long…

I concur, people will always use cats as the scape goat but cats don’t poison, deplete habitat and take out multiple numbers of birds at any one time. People will detroy the nest and whatever it contains, regardless of speicies etc

No ecological experience? Apart from “”lives on a small farm in north Wiltshire where he has planted thousands of young trees and created acres of wildlife habitat where none existed before” and Hon. Treasurer of the Royal Horticultural Society.

When I worked for ABRO (Army Based Reapir Organisation) we would not move any vehicle into the workshop for repair if there was a bird nesting in, or on, the vehicle – several of the top brass got a bit iffy about this when vehicles were not repaired on time, even for combat use in Iraq etc… But that was the law of the land – if the MOD accepted this, then so should any builders…. Many people would confuse a robin or a starling with other species – where would such actions end???

Cats may be “nice” but they kill billions of wild animals, birds and mammals each year. “Free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.3–4.0 billion birds and 6.3–22.3 billion mammals annually in the United States and are likely the single greatest source of anthropogenic mortality for US birds and mammals.” Pet cats do not belong outdoors. Not only are they detrimental to small animal populations, the average life span of an outside cat is 7 years, indoor cats can live upwards of 15.

so heading a quango by the name of ‘Natural England’ means you can go about planting thousands of trees willy nilly where they never existed before? thats the trouble with landed gentry running these things, they can’t see past the immaculately landscaped gardens most of them either grew up with ,or aspired to. nature to the majority of the people who care about these things is indeed red in tooth and claw, and just because you sold off your business does not mean you’ve left the industry and its contacts and temptations behind.

Government by any party regardless of the people who mistakenly think each party is different always comes up with the need for substantial funds .Ergo big business,which quickly comes to the fore but requires certain backhanders in the form of this type of legislation with no consideration on the end result . when will we have the power to dismiss these useless people in government. What a world we are leaving for our offsprings. No birds no bees eventually NO FOOD

Not really. Cats are responsible for the slaughter of 250 million birds and mammals eache year and there are only (only?) about seven million of them. I don’t think even us humans destroy at such a rate and so consistently.

Doubt very much this is true, starlings for one are on the red list, meaning there status is critical and there endangered, no one in their right mind would grant the killing or destroying of nests, what would be the point of taking them further and possibly wipeing them out and before anyone says it ( I don’t vote) and would never vote.

Nothing and I mean” NOTHING” should surprise anyone anymore with regards to how low people will go to make a more $$. The jackasses running some banks can loose a fortune and still pick up a fat bonus, while people are starving, so do you think these whores to the great $$$ who throw there cash at political parties to grease the works give a toss about a breeding birds !!!!

Red status (last reviewed in 2009) means they are of conservation concern (due to falling numbers), though there are still apparently in the region of 6.7 million breeding pairs, they are not endangered.

The licence change being considered (which would be to match the current licence conditions in Wales, Scotland and Ireland) would only allow the destruction of nest and eggs by an authorised person to control starlings to prevent serious damage to agriculture or preserve public health and safety. It would still remain illegal to kill the birds or destroy their nests for any other reason, including development.

I had a robin nesting in my outside electric cupboard. Was fascinated watching those three baby robins grow. I would leave mealworms near to the nest for the parents to eat. Unfortunately I was away when the fledglings flew the nest. I’m hoping they nest again, love to see all the birds. I have three bird baths, put food out, but careful not left to attract rats, so make sure only enough is eaten each day. I’ve got crows, magpies, starlings, blackbirds, robins, sparrows, gold finches, blue tits, great tits, coal tits, and I’m only four miles from a big London airport. We need to protect our wildlife at all costs.

people need to understand the new world order of greed by people who think huge numbers of money will make them greater in a 100 years if this planet survives 1 man will control everything on it like james bonds films we will be fed biscuits like soilent green the film ,trust me its comeing

I agree totally with you Maryjane – so far their record of destroying our wildlife is beyond belief. First they announce that ‘farmers’ can destroy buzzards’ protected nests and eggs (to protect the shooting industry). Then they decide that they will destroy most of our wonderful badgers on the pretence that they have bTB (not proved, but suspect that killing all badgers in spite of the fact that they are a protected species, would protect the pheasant poults being reared on shooting estates). Now it seems there is carte blanche for any old body to destroy our most favourite and protected bird species, including the endangered starling whenever they fancy. And now I heard yesterday that in Devon the local Council (Tory) want to slaughter all the beavers that have made a come-back because ‘they have tapeworms!! I would hazard a guess and say that most wild animals (and many domestic animals too) have tapeworm so what is the real reason behind killing beavers? Is it to protect the local fish farms I wonder? I am heartily sick of this appalling government that appears to have no heart, sensitivity, morals or give a toss about our amazing wildlife, or indeed the vulnerable people of this counntry. Roll on 2015 and pray God we can get rid of this callous Nasty government. (Tories just never change do they?)

And I forgot to add that this vile government is also hell bent on repealing the Hunting Act too – just to appease the wealthy hunters of the Countryside Alliance in spite of the fact that about 82% of people do not want to see a return to this barbarity.

It may not be the Tory councillor who wants rid of beavers. the reports say it is angling groups who seem to hate anything but fish. As an angler for 50 years, I’m ashamed of this. They may have some justification in fears about cormorants and otters which do eat plenty of fish. But I wonder if some of these anglers actually know beavers are vegetarian and usually improve habitat.. The story is damaging the reputation of anglers who go for the enjoyment of all nature and are shocked by the viciousness of a few idiots.

There is so much confusion here. Natural England are upset by the comments but it is never clear how NE see their role, or what the government is telling them. There may well be a majority in NE that wish to protect wildlife but one can sense the pressure from a government who don’t like ‘green crap’. There is definitely a ‘presumption in favour of development’ and in Defra there is a presumption in favour of land-owners. Until someone in NE is open about the situation there will be many more of these misunderstandings. (a whistle-blower would be good…..?) As stated by others here, we pay for these outfits, and I would like to know what I’m getting for the money.

I agree with you that parties of all colours are willing to destroy wildlife to keep their donors happy. But frankly, you’ve got no evidence of that.

Here’s why:

1) These proposals stand to benefit *all* developers, and not all developers are Tory donors.
2) Just because a proposal stands to benefit a donor, doesn’t mean that its a bad thing. We need to build houses, after all, and all development comes at some cost to the natural environment.
3) You can’t claim to know where these proposals come from. For all you know, they were put together by a junior researcher who votes Labour.

I recently emailed chair of the RSPB Steve Omernod about some of the concerns you bought up in this post. He has been very useful in responding and passed the issue on to his colleagues. Yesterday he emailed to say that the motion would at most create a yearly saving of less than £2,000 in administration fee’s (which seems a ridiculously low sum) and that they still do not understand Natural England’s true motive behind this. I suspect however, you are on the right lines with this, as they do suggest they have been pressured to reduce the licensing fee. We can only assume the bulk of those requiring licenses are associated with development in rural areas. But until we have any solid proof of this we can only hope that there has been enough uproar to stop the license from passing.

Reblogged this on Scarborough Conservation Volunteers & Scarborough Woods Action Group and commented:
Two days ago on a wildlife recording workshop I was told that N.E were the terrible at recording species ,if this is true and given who it was that told us i have no reason to disbelieve them ,how do N.E know that these birds are increasing or declining in numbers never mind a problem ?

I know your a lefty but your one of my favourite lefty`s Tom and we may not agree on everything but the wildlfe and nature is a united front left or right : ) Good post mate keep up the good work, peace out ,Hunter

The Idea that People are “Expendable”, because the importance of Wildlife, and Its habitat, takes Precedence, over the desire of GREEDY Property Developers, to Con
the public into buying Over Priced, “Homes”, is Laughable.!!
The only reason that the Tories want everyone to “Own” their own Home, is to
enslave them into paying huge sums of interest to Banks, on mortgages the Buyer
will end up repaying for most of their working life. Also Boosting the obscene Profits
of Tory Funding Property Developers, in the process.
Where there`s a Tory, there`s a “Snout in The Trough!”!